-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

LATAUSHA FAITH SIMMONS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

May 15, 2018

v No. 337578

Wayne Circuit Court

SECRETARY OF STATE, LC No. 17-000750-CZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and K. F. KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, LaTausha Simmons, appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary 

disposition in favor of defendant, the Secretary of State, under MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction) and (C)(8) (failure to state a claim). We affirm. 

Simmons sued defendant after defendant declined to renew her driver’s license because 

of unpaid parking tickets. Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) and (C)(8), and the trial court granted defendant’s motion on both grounds. On 

appeal, Simmons contends that the trial court erred when it determined that it did not have 

subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Simmons’s claim and denied Simmons’s request for leave to 

amend her complaint. We reject Simmons’s first argument and decline to address the second. 

We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition. Maiden v 

Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). We also review de novo questions of 

subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation. Forest Hills Coop v Ann Arbor, 305 

Mich App 572, 616; 854 NW2d 172 (2014). In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4), 

which provides for summary disposition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, “we must 

determine whether the affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and 

documentary evidence, demonstrate” that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. L & 

L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 356; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Simmons first contends that the trial court erred by concluding that it lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction. Trial courts derive jurisdiction from the Michigan Constitution or a statute 

conferring jurisdiction. Harris v Vernier, 242 Mich App 306, 319-320; 617 NW2d 764 (2000). 

A court’s jurisdiction depends on the type of case, not “the particular facts of a case.” Id. at 319. 

In this case, MCL 257.323 provides limited jurisdiction to circuit courts to review defendant’s 
-2-

decisions to deny, revoke, suspend, or restrict an operator’s license, and it limits the relief the 

circuit court can grant. MCL 257.323(1) and (3). The circuit court may only “affirm, modify, or 

set aside the restriction, suspension, or denial” of an operator’s license. MCL 257.323(3). 

Instead of filing a petition seeking a remedy available in MCL 257.323, Simmons filed a 

complaint that far exceeded the scope of the jurisdiction imparted by the statute. Simmons’s

complaint alleged fraud, mistake, and misrepresentation, negligence, and constitutional and 

statutory violations separate from and beyond those contemplated by MCL 257.323. Simmons 

requested injunctive and equitable relief, declaratory relief, and damages in excess of $25,000 for 

the harm she suffered as a result of her inability to drive. Simmons’s complaint was a tort action 

against the state, not the type of petition seeking review of a determination by defendant as 

contemplated by MCL 257.323.1 The trial court properly focused on this distinction when it 

determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Further, the trial court properly found that Simmons should have filed her complaint in 

the Court of Claims. MCL 600.6419(1)(a) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Claims

to hear claims “against the state or any of its departments or officers . . . [,]” as presented in 

Simmons’s complaint. In short, the trial court did not err by ruling that it lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Simmons’s complaint and that the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction to 

hear this type of claim.

2

 

Simmons further contends that the trial court erred by not allowing her to amend her 

complaint. For an issue to be properly preserved for appeal, it must have been “presented to and 

decided by the circuit court.” Forest Hills Coop, 305 Mich App at 615. In this case, Simmons 

only once, in a passing remark in a brief, asked the trial court to allow her to amend her 

complaint. Simmons did not otherwise request leave to amend or specify how she would amend 

the complaint to bring it within the trial court’s jurisdiction. Simmons could have requested 

leave to amend at any time during the proceedings, or she could have simply filed the amended 

complaint as a new petition. Thus, Simmons did not properly raise this issue before the trial 

court. Accordingly, this issue is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. 

We affirm. 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

 1 In addition, MCL 257.323(4) limits the scope of the trial court’s evidentiary review to a 

plaintiff’s driving record and records of administrative hearings. Simmons attached numerous 

exhibits to her complaint that exceeded the scope of this evidentiary review. 

2 Having determined that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we need not review 

the trial court’s application of MCR 2.116(C)(8).